Jump to content
IGNORED

'Creationism' and 'Intelligent Design' are inherently NOT disciplines


A Christian 1985

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  13
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  105
  • Content Per Day:  0.06
  • Reputation:   15
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/22/2019
  • Status:  Offline

I am perturbed, flabbergasted, and disturbed by the continuing efforts of ignorant, misguided, and scripturally incorrect religious people to foist their misconceptions, under the guise of ‘scientific theories’ (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) upon the educational system. ANY school of thought which has ANY supernatural mechanisms as a means is inherently disqualified to be a scientific discipline. In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual reality and Biblical truth; and are a tremendous disservice to God and His interests concerning the human race. Please objectively consider the enclosed information. May it finally put to rest the ‘red herring’ of an evolution/Genesis conflict. Should you find it to be of value, feel free to disseminate it as far and wide as you wish.

           

...The more famous subject of Darwin's uniformitarianism, usually termed  "evolution," comes to the front. This is always a controversial and emotional subject, and is usually discussed in a quasi‑scientific manner. 128

 

Evolution was, in its conception, an applied extension to biology of the school of thought known as uniformitarianism. Evolution itself is a logical explanation of the information that it correlates, and the evidence of the appropriate scientific fields has consistently verified the mechanisms necessary for substantiating the validity of evolution. Evolution, while it is not a proven process in the strictest sense, is completely valid in its viability and is the only logical process (i.e., one amenable to scientific analysis) so tenable.

 

 Modern humanists, increasingly anti‑Genesis in outlook, were growing in numbers and in positions of importance, especially in academic circles. To Voltaire, for instance, any mention of the Flood was offensive; it implied too much of God, or of judgment, or of the Judeo‑Christian heritage. Despite evidence left by fossils and sedimentary strata, as well as literary heritages, a Biblical Flood was taboo to him, and to many others.

Voltaire was somewhat typical of the anti‑spiritual humanists of his day. He was thoroughly anti‑Christian and anti‑Judaistic. He felt that the burial of the Bible in general and the Genesis record in particular, would be a great service to mankind.130

 

The human error in the promotion and promulgation of evolution was, and still is, of two aspects: Firstly, as we shall see later on in this chapter, the school of thought that gave rise to the theory of evolution­- Uniformitarianism‑ is totally in contradiction to scientific evidence. Uniformitarianism was founded on insufficient and incomplete data, and the motives for its adoption were more anti‑Genesis than they were pro‑scientific.

 

Evolution as a scientific discipline must be divorced from the associated parent philosophy “Uniformitarianism” which was in vogue preceding it for reasons which have been discredited since. Evolution is a valid scientific discipline, Uniformitarianism is a disproven philosophy and school of thought. Uniformitarianism has intruded and embedded itself into scientific thought and thus skewed many considerations of cosmology and astral physics from being objective and empirical. Never mind poor old Emmanuel Velikovsky: While the evidence that he was considering was and is relevant and valid, his derivations (due to his great lack in correct scientific methodology) and conclusions were far amiss. He thus did a great disservice to the school of astral catastrophism, and set back its credibility immensely.

The most recent conclusive disproof of Uniformitarianism is this(Coverage to the public was broadcast on a segment of Nova in 2004):

1. In the past decade (1990's) a radar/topological mapping satellite of improved precision surveyed the surface of Venus.

2. Recently formed (even of possibly historical times), non-eroded craters were found in large and significant quantities on the surface of Venus, craters which were not the result of volcanic activity, but of astral catastrophism (meteoric impact).

3. When a renowned (I didn’t take note of his name, due to the following) uniformitarian astrophysicist was interviewed for his opinion he said: “Well, I don’t see how Uniformitarianism can ever possibly explain these craters. But, nevertheless, I’m not willing to give it up”.

4. Gentleman, this is not objective, logical, scientific methodology. Scientific methodology requires that when the derived conclusions of your theory are found to be false in light of the evidence, then you either discard the theory or, if possible modify the flawed part of it accordingly. To cling to it after it has been disproved is not objective, it is religious domaticism.

“Creationism” per se in all of its multi-fared manifestations, invoking to some extent and at some point a supernatural genesis of species, thus by its very nature cannot nor ever can be a scientific discipline. That being the case, “creationism” has absolutely no place whatsoever in any scientific textbook.

                            

The second mistake, resulting from the same anti‑spiritual motivation as the first, was in the use of evolution as one pillar of a mechanistic explanation capable of circumventing the problem of first cause, i.e., the origination of everything. Evolution is merely a process and is not an explanation of actual creation; the explanation of creation per se does not lie within the realm of scientific explanation.

 

 The only distinct meaning of the word "natural" is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as such requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once.132

 

The author of the above is referring to the implications of natural as is connotated by the term "natural selection." The very working mechanism of evolution implies intelligence behind such a process no less so than does that of a supernatural divine creation.

 

 I see no good reason why the views given in this volume (the Origin of Species and the Descent of Mari) should shock the religious feelings of anyone.... A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as liable a conception of the Deity to believe that he created a few original forms capable of self development into other and needful forms as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws. 133

(These are Charles Darwin's own words here)

 

The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.

 

Evolutionists for non­scientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.

 

Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-­Creation" argument.

 

The orthodox Christians escaped the greater error altogether; but, nevertheless gave clear testimony to the influence of the popular belief in their interpretation of the commencing chapter of Genesis. For they made the first verse signify the creation of a confused mass of elements, out of which the heavens and earth were formed during the six days, understanding the next sentence to be a description of this crude matter before God shaped it. And their opinion has descended to our days. But it does not appear to be substantiated by Scripture, as we shall presently see, and the guile of the serpent may be detected in its results. For how great a contest has it provoked between the Church and the World!

 

            For we are told that in the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth; but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the six days. The work of those days was, as we shall presently see, quite a different thing from original creation: they were times of restoration, and the word asah is generally used in connection with them.

                Now asah signifies to make, fashion, or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a house, or prepare a meal.139

 

Today, to be pro‑spiritual and to appreciate the Judeo‑Christian heritage, one must, it seems, be anti‑scientific. This is a common consensus; it is a mirage.140

 

To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  9
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  69
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   46
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/22/2019
  • Status:  Offline

In my humble opinion, maybe you would have better participation if you kept your OPs simpler instead of a cut and paste fest. Remember K.I.S.S.

Just sayin'

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  17
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,263
  • Content Per Day:  1.74
  • Reputation:   1,673
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/27/2019
  • Status:  Offline

Science, the science that put a man on the moon, can transplant hearts etc depends on Christian philosophy.

Atheism has not and cannot explain why the universe is explainable by mathmatics.

Biogenesis is an unexplained problem as is how new genetic information arises.

Evolution is claimed to be scientific fact yet no one has the facts that show evolution to be scientific.

It is a statement of 'Faith' !

  • Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  26
  • Topic Count:  61
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  9,602
  • Content Per Day:  4.03
  • Reputation:   7,795
  • Days Won:  21
  • Joined:  09/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

What a lot of words. Me brain is turned to glue now. Evolution is a theory and a poor multifaceted set of contradictory theorems at that.

Scripture is NOT science. It is a faith based Theology. Theology does not mix well with 'science' and to do so is a never ending juxtaposition of faith vs theory. A never ending miasma of oxymoronic concepts.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Loved it! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.44
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

On 8/22/2019 at 7:03 PM, A Christian 1985 said:

“Creationism” per se in all of its multi-fared manifestations, invoking to some extent and at some point a supernatural genesis of species, thus by its very nature cannot nor ever can be a scientific discipline. That being the case, “creationism” has absolutely no place whatsoever in any scientific textbook.

There have been many famous scientists who believed in special creation in the past. In particular, the following scientists were creationists:
 

  • Louis Agassiz (1807-1873; glacial geology)
  • Charles Babbage (1792-1871; computer science)
  • Francis Bacon (1561-1626; scientific method)
  • Robert Boyle (1627-1691; gas dynamics)
  • David Brewster (1781-1868; optical mineralogy)
  • Georges Cuvier (1769-1832; comparative anatomy)
  • Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519; hydraulics)
  • Humphrey Davy (1778-1829; thermokinetics)
  • Henri Fabre (1823-1915; entomology of living insects)
  • Michael Faraday (1791-1867; electromagnetics)
  • John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945; electronics)
  • Joseph Henry (1797-1878; inventor)
  • William Herschel (1738-1822; galactic astronomy)
  • James Joule (1818-1889; reversible thermodynamics)
  • Lord Kelvin (1824-1907; energetics)
  • Johann Kepler (1571-1630; celestial mechanics)
  • Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778; systematic biology)
  • Joseph Lister (1827-1912; antiseptic surgery)
  • Matthew Maury (1806-1873; oceanography)
  • James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879; electrodynamics)
  • Gregor Mendel (1822-1884; genetics)
  • Samuel F. B. Morse (1791-1872; telegraph inventor)
  • Isaac Newton (1642-1727; calculus)
  • Blaise Pascal (1623-1662; hydrostatics)
  • Louis Pasteur (1822-1895; bacteriology)
  • William Ramsay (1852-1916; isotopic chemistry)
  • John Ray (1627-1705; natural history)
  • Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919; dimensional analysis)
  • Bernhard Riemann (1826- 1866; non-Euclidean geometry)
  • James Simpson (1811-1870; gynecology)
  • Nicholas Steno (1631-1686; stratigraphy)
  • George Stokes (1819-1903; fluid mechanics)
  • Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902; pathology)
  • John Woodward (1665-1728; paleontology)


Agassiz, Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Dawson, Virchow, Fabre, and Fleming were strong opponents of evolution.

Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1982. Bible-believing scientists of the past. Impact 103 (Jan.), http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=185
 
I Guess none of these scientists, and their scientific theories should be included in those scientific text books either, since they believed in creationism....Hmph! 
  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

On 8/31/2019 at 11:14 AM, dhchristian said:

There have been many famous scientists who believed in special creation in the past. In particular, the following scientists were creationists:
 

  • Louis Agassiz (1807-1873; glacial geology)
  • Charles Babbage (1792-1871; computer science)
  • Francis Bacon (1561-1626; scientific method)
  • Robert Boyle (1627-1691; gas dynamics)
  • David Brewster (1781-1868; optical mineralogy)
  • Georges Cuvier (1769-1832; comparative anatomy)
  • Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519; hydraulics)
  • Humphrey Davy (1778-1829; thermokinetics)
  • Henri Fabre (1823-1915; entomology of living insects)
  • Michael Faraday (1791-1867; electromagnetics)
  • John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945; electronics)
  • Joseph Henry (1797-1878; inventor)
  • William Herschel (1738-1822; galactic astronomy)
  • James Joule (1818-1889; reversible thermodynamics)
  • Lord Kelvin (1824-1907; energetics)
  • Johann Kepler (1571-1630; celestial mechanics)
  • Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778; systematic biology)
  • Joseph Lister (1827-1912; antiseptic surgery)
  • Matthew Maury (1806-1873; oceanography)
  • James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879; electrodynamics)
  • Gregor Mendel (1822-1884; genetics)
  • Samuel F. B. Morse (1791-1872; telegraph inventor)
  • Isaac Newton (1642-1727; calculus)
  • Blaise Pascal (1623-1662; hydrostatics)
  • Louis Pasteur (1822-1895; bacteriology)
  • William Ramsay (1852-1916; isotopic chemistry)
  • John Ray (1627-1705; natural history)
  • Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919; dimensional analysis)
  • Bernhard Riemann (1826- 1866; non-Euclidean geometry)
  • James Simpson (1811-1870; gynecology)
  • Nicholas Steno (1631-1686; stratigraphy)
  • George Stokes (1819-1903; fluid mechanics)
  • Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902; pathology)
  • John Woodward (1665-1728; paleontology)


Agassiz, Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Dawson, Virchow, Fabre, and Fleming were strong opponents of evolution.

Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1982. Bible-believing scientists of the past. Impact 103 (Jan.), http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=185
 
I Guess none of these scientists, and their scientific theories should be included in those scientific text books either, since they believed in creationism....Hmph! 

Pasteur acknowledged evolution:

Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely.

Cuny, Hilaire. 1965. Louis Pasteur: The man and his theories. Translated by P. Evans. London: The Scientific Book Club.

Clearly, a lot of scientists who were not biologists and who lived before Darwin's discoveries, did not think of evolution.   Today, almost all scientists, even non-biologists, accept evolution.   There's an important thing to consider in those facts. 

Prior to J.J. Thompson, the existence of atoms was controversial.   For the same reason.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.44
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

9 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Pasteur acknowledged evolution:

Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely.

Cuny, Hilaire. 1965. Louis Pasteur: The man and his theories. Translated by P. Evans. London: The Scientific Book Club.

Clearly, a lot of scientists who were not biologists and who lived before Darwin's discoveries, did not think of evolution.   Today, almost all scientists, even non-biologists, accept evolution.   There's an important thing to consider in those facts. 

Prior to J.J. Thompson, the existence of atoms was controversial.   For the same reason.

“… I choose to believe in something that I know that is not scientifically possible: the spontaneous generation that leads to evolution”.

Who spoke those words? George Wald, Nobel prize in medicine... Ain't self deception great?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

21 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

“… I choose to believe in something that I know that is not scientifically possible: the spontaneous generation that leads to evolution”.

Who spoke those words? George Wald, Nobel prize in medicine... Ain't self deception great?

A physician thinks that evolution is about spontaneous generation?  :laugh:   This shows why you should never ask a physician for his opinion on anything but medicine.   If you were wondering, nothing in evolutionary theory is about how life began; nor does any particular way that it began, matter to evolutionary theory.  Darwin, for example, just thought that God created the first living things.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Charles Darwin, last sentence of  On the Origin of Species, 1872

Edited by The Barbarian
erer
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.44
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

Just now, The Barbarian said:

A physician thinks that evolution is about spontaneous generation?  :laugh:   This shows why you should never ask a physician for his opinion on anything but medicine.   If you were wondering, nothing in evolutionary theory is about how life began; nor does any particular way that it began, matter to evolutionary theory.  Darwin, for example, just thought that God created the first living things.

Just showing how scientist lie to themselves all the time. If God created life, then could he not have created it in 6 days, I mean he is almighty God, right?

You see the evolutionists have come to the realization that you cannot create something out of nothing, so they have separated evolution and abiogenesis.

Actually Mendel published his work on genetics 7 years after Darwin his, and his theory was not received because of the popularity of Darwin and the denial of God this afforded. Mendel's initial work as well as the discovery of Watson and Crick as to the double helix design of DNA are the deathblow to evolution, Only science wishes to remain in self deception, so they preach evolution as settled science which it is not. 

  • This is Worthy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.44
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

7 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

A physician thinks that evolution is about spontaneous generation?  :laugh:   This shows why you should never ask a physician for his opinion on anything but medicine.   If you were wondering, nothing in evolutionary theory is about how life began; nor does any particular way that it began, matter to evolutionary theory.  Darwin, for example, just thought that God created the first living things.

I Found this response at Quora very interesting as well...

All of the great Biologists of our time reject Darwin's theory, including Nobel Prize winners such as Barbara McClintock and Luc Montagnier. The discoverer of archaea, Carl Woese also rejected Darwinism, as does the famous Lynn Margulis who researched endosymbiosis. John Cairnes was among the first to demonstrate scientifically that Darwinian evolution is false and his studies were replicated and endorsed by Pat Foster of the NIH and many other trail blazers, such as Barry Hall.
 
The most outspoken anti-Darwinians of the 21st century are probably Dennis Noble and James Shapiro, the latter authoring a book called "Evolution; a View from the 21st Century", which tears down Darwinism and replaces it with Natural Genetic Engineering.
 
There are also those who advocate "Intelligent Design", such as the group called the Discovery Institute, but this organization has ties to Creationist agendas and has no more foundation as serious scientists than atheist apologists such as Dawkins, Moran or Coyne. The names I gave you are religiously neutral accomplished scientists, not atheism or bible advocates.
 
The National Academy of Sciences has formally agreed that Neo-Darwinism is wrong in claiming that mutations are random and the word "random" has been removed from the NGSS section on mutations.
 
The scientific method has pretty much killed Darwin.
 
A better question would be to ask if anybody of importance who is not an atheism advocate still endorses Darwin's outdated theory.

EDIT 9–17–18: Due to a recent uptick in interest in this answer, I think it best to add to the fast-growing list of important world-renowned Biologists who reject Neo-Darwinism and/or advocate the acceptance of alternatives. Apparently the word is getting out of the paradigm shift in which the major players in Biology have turned toward more Neo-Lamarckian evolution and away from the random mutation / selection concept of evolution.

I must say that when I wrote this response three plus years ago, I found it odd that all of the Biologists that were quite famous for their accomplishments seemed to be the most strongly against Darwinistic ideas, yet Neo-Darwinism still seemed to be the dominant paradigm overall. I no longer believe that Neo-Darwinism holds a consensus agreement within the scientific community.

In 2016, after I wrote this response, the Royal Society held a high-profile convention pertaining to the “New Trends” in Evolution. The leader of the convention, Denis Noble, whom I have already referenced, and who invented the pacemaker saving millions of lives, has this to say about Neo-Darwinism:

".... all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved. Moreover, they have been disproved in ways that raise the tantalizing prospect of a totally new synthesis..."

Also at that convention, Sonia Sultan presented powerful evidence supporting Neo-Lamarckian evolution, and the gathering was overwhelmingly in support of the conclusion that it was well beyond time to shift the powerfully entrenched paradigm of Neo-Darwinism to something far more intentional. To me, that meeting represented a changing of the guard in evolutionary biology. The new consensus is NOT Neo-Darwinism, although there is still some discussion over whether these “new trends” should replace or “extend” Darwinian ideas.

There are plenty of heroes in the battle against stagnant orthodoxy, so I would like to give them their due. Suzan Mazur, a journalist who writes about scientific topics, wrote a book called “The Paradigm Shifters” and included among names I already mentioned illuminaries such as Eugene Koonin, Stuart Newman, Mae-Won Ho, Raju Pookottil and Nigel Goldenfeld. Mazur wrote a book about the aforementioned Royal Society meeting as well as a 2008 meeting in Altenberg, Austria where 16 scientists convened to discuss serious problems with the entrenched Darwinian hegemony, a group she dubbed the “Altenberg 16”. She also interviewed Niles Eldridge, who, along with Steven J Gould, published a groundbreaking paper denouncing the gradualism version of Darwinian evolution, in favor of punctuated equilibrium.

Others that deserve credit for turning the world of evolution upside down are Susan Rosenberg for her work on directed mutations, Bonnie Bassler for her entertaining TED talks regarding the intelligence and communication skills of microbial organisms as well as earlier work by Henri Bergsen. I have to give props to Stu Kauffman, who stated simply that “Agency is real.” It was DM Prescott in 2000 who revealed that a protozoan broke its DNA into 100,000 pieces and put it back together again functionally without a template.

The most recent assembly that has joined forces to combat the now refuted Darwinian culture is a group of esteemed scientists calling themselves the “Third Way of Evolution”, with the third way being NOT Creationism and NOT Neo-Darwinism, but evolution via intelligent cells’ intentional response to needs. Included in this group are:

James Shapiro, Denis Noble, Raju Pookottil, Eva Jablanka, Evelyn Fox Keller, Gerd Muller, Guenther Witzany, Eugene Koonin, John Torday, Robert Austin and many more are aligned in this group against Neo-Darwinism.

The Third Way of Evolution

The following link is an article written as the headliner for an issue of the respected literature Journal of Physiology, whose editor devoted an entire issue to the Third Way of Evolution, called Natural Genetic Engineering. Anyone who still thinks Neo-Darwinism is the accepted consensus among biologists should read this article fully. There are several names listed on there that I should have included in this response anyway.

Evolution evolves: physiology returns to centre stage

You specified scientists, but since Neo-Darwinism holds at its core the insane idea that random chaos explains constant upgrades in genetic data (rather than destruction), so the mathematicians have a LOT to say about that. Four hundred of the world’s premier mathematicians gathered at a college called Wistar for a series of conventions to discuss whether or not Neo-Darwinian Luck Theory was even possible. Their unanimous conclusion, as described in Paul Moorehead’s book “The Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution” was that Neo-Darwinism was “untenable”. Prominent mathematicians present were Murray Eden and Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger. as well as the meeting chairperson, Peter Medawar.

Fred Hoyle, the mathematician/scientist who coined the term “Big Bang” but refused to accept its existence based on his atheism, wrote two books explaining in detail why Neo-Darwinism was mathematically impossible (“The Mathematics of Evolution” and “Why Neo-Darwinism Does Not Work”).

Paging back to the beginnings of evolutionary science, the Father of Evolution himself would need to be Jean Baptiste de Lamarck, who proposed the idea of the inheritance of Acquired Characteristics, a theory that is bearing fruit in modern day evolutionary experiments. While he pre-dated Darwin, his theory was so popular that most scientists rejected Darwin even in his own day.

Based on direct repeatable experimental evidence, the scientific consensus in the year 2018 is that evolution as we know it is a cell’s predictable and intelligent response to a changed environmental need, not random mutations nor selection nor gradualism, as per Darwin.

 

https://www.quora.com/Who-are-biologists-who-deny-Darwins-theory-of-evolution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...